Dark Reading is part of the Informa Tech Division of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them.Informa PLC's registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

Perimeter

9/24/2011
10:00 AM
Commentary
Commentary
Commentary
50%
50%

New FFIEC Authentication Guidance Calls For Layers

Increased threats and weaknesses in certain accepted authentication mechanisms, FFIEC warns

At the end of June, the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC) issued a supplement to the Authentication in an Internet Banking Environment guidance, which was originally released in October 2005. The substance of the guidance is that financial institutions should base their choices of authentication methods on risk assessments, and that high-risk transactions should be based on layered mechanisms.

The guidance (PDF) paints a somber and accurate picture of the threats facing institutions doing business on the Internet: It cites increasingly sophisticated criminal groups that target financial institutions, broadly available tools that allow unskilled fraudsters to perpetrate attacks, and the availability of detailed information on how to circumvent standard authentication and antifraud mechanisms as key threats to today’s financial institutions. Because of the increased number and severity of the threats, the FFIEC believes the guidance it gave in 2005 needed to be reinforced and strengthened.

The FFIEC has maintained from the start that security controls should be chosen based on results from a thorough risk assessment. The guidance recommends conducting a risk assessment not only at the initial deployment of a service, but also when threats change (e.g., known attack methods, identified vulnerabilities in mechanisms), when customer types and behavior change (e.g., increases in user sophistication or unanticipated increase in use of the service), when features of the service change (e.g., higher transaction limits or more automation), and after incidents (e.g., identity theft or fraud).

It stands to reason that an assessment of the risk of low-frequency, low-value consumer transactions would pose less a risk to financial institutions and their customers than commercial transactions that occur at high frequency or involve large sums of money.

Consequently, the FFIEC recommends increasing the strength of authentication mechanism as the assessed risk rises. And consistent with its previous recommendations, it continues to recommend multifactor authentication for high-risk transactions. However, in recognition of some of the high-profile compromises that have occurred in the past few years, the guidance points out that virtually every authentication mechanism can be compromised. It even goes as far as to say that specific techniques recommended in 2006 are vulnerable to attack. The punch line of the guidance is that organizations shouldn’t rely entirely on a single authentication method to protect them. Good security is based on layered defenses that consist of both technical and business mechanisms. The report lists various layered mechanisms (which will be discussed in more detail in a future post), but identifies two customer situations where these layers are necessary: account registration (and initial authentication) and transfer of funds to other parties. This shouldn’t surprise anyone in the financial community because these two activities are the easiest to perpetrate fraud.

The FFIEC guidance is an excellent short paper on the threat landscape, the effectiveness of popular authentication methods, and the need for layered defenses, particularly in specific types of customer interactions and transactions. Every security professional should seriously consider the advice the FFIEC provides.

Richard Mackey is vice president of consulting at SystemExperts Corp.

 

Recommended Reading:

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
COVID-19: Latest Security News & Commentary
Dark Reading Staff 8/3/2020
Pen Testers Who Got Arrested Doing Their Jobs Tell All
Kelly Jackson Higgins, Executive Editor at Dark Reading,  8/5/2020
'BootHole' Vulnerability Exposes Secure Boot Devices to Attack
Kelly Sheridan, Staff Editor, Dark Reading,  7/29/2020
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Current Issue
Special Report: Computing's New Normal, a Dark Reading Perspective
This special report examines how IT security organizations have adapted to the "new normal" of computing and what the long-term effects will be. Read it and get a unique set of perspectives on issues ranging from new threats & vulnerabilities as a result of remote working to how enterprise security strategy will be affected long term.
Flash Poll
The Changing Face of Threat Intelligence
The Changing Face of Threat Intelligence
This special report takes a look at how enterprises are using threat intelligence, as well as emerging best practices for integrating threat intel into security operations and incident response. Download it today!
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2020-16192
PUBLISHED: 2020-08-05
LimeSurvey 4.3.2 allows reflected XSS because application/controllers/LSBaseController.php lacks code to validate parameters.
CVE-2020-17364
PUBLISHED: 2020-08-05
USVN (aka User-friendly SVN) before 1.0.9 allows XSS via SVN logs.
CVE-2020-4481
PUBLISHED: 2020-08-05
IBM UrbanCode Deploy (UCD) 6.2.7.3, 6.2.7.4, 7.0.3.0, and 7.0.4.0 is vulnerable to an XML External Entity Injection (XXE) attack when processing XML data. A remote attacker could exploit this vulnerability to expose sensitive information or consume memory resources. IBM X-Force ID: 181848.
CVE-2020-5608
PUBLISHED: 2020-08-05
CAMS for HIS CENTUM CS 3000 (includes CENTUM CS 3000 Small) R3.08.10 to R3.09.50, CENTUM VP (includes CENTUM VP Small, Basic) R4.01.00 to R6.07.00, B/M9000CS R5.04.01 to R5.05.01, and B/M9000 VP R6.01.01 to R8.03.01 allows a remote unauthenticated attacker to bypass authentication and send altered c...
CVE-2020-5609
PUBLISHED: 2020-08-05
Directory traversal vulnerability in CAMS for HIS CENTUM CS 3000 (includes CENTUM CS 3000 Small) R3.08.10 to R3.09.50, CENTUM VP (includes CENTUM VP Small, Basic) R4.01.00 to R6.07.00, B/M9000CS R5.04.01 to R5.05.01, and B/M9000 VP R6.01.01 to R8.03.01 allows a remote unauthenticated attacker to cre...